in: Scienze dell'Antichità 23.3 (2017), pp. 3-30, tav. I a p. 633 LORENZO NIGRO BEHEADED ANCESTORS. OF SKULLS AND STATUES IN PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC JERICHO INTRODUCTION One of the most striking features of prehistoric Jericho (Tell es-Sultan, Palestine) are 45 hu- man skulls retrieved in Pre-Pottery1 Neolithic layers by Kathleen M. Kenyon during the second British Expedition at the site, between 1952 and 19582. Pre-Pottery Neolithic human remains had already been discovered by John Garstang3 during the first British Expedition of 1930-364. Garstang also retrieved two caches of plaster statues, which, with a bust found by Kenyon in the same area5, represent the last development of the same process of images making started with skulls separated burials. Both phenomena can be fruitfully set into the long duration panorama of the transition from foraging to farming in Southern Levant6. Since their discovery, the attention of scholars and public was focused on the most striking plastered skulls/crania (twelve specimens + two only painted) found in Middle PPNB layers, al- though the practice of skulls separation started earlier7, and Kenyon had also found 26 separated skulls/crania in previous PPNA and Early PPNB strata (§ 2.)8. Jericho skulls (§ 3.) still represent almost half of all known plain and modeled skulls found in the Levant (Fig. 1)9. Hereby, a synthesis of finds is presented showing the development of this custom between PPNA and PPNB at Jericho10, and focusing on the finding contexts of these separated skulls/cra- 1 At Jericho, I would prefer to label this period “Aceramic” as it does not represent a premise of the following “Pottery Neolithic”, which, from many respects, marks a regression in cultural and technological achievements, except for the introduction of pottery. The two periods are, moreover, separated by a hiatus in several areas of the site, and also flint industry is markedly different. “Aceramic” would also better accomplish the goal of demising an evolutionary interpretation of Levantine prehistory. 2 KENYON 1981. 3 Garstang found two curious burials: one with twisted neck and body held down, and one with separated skulls (by accident, due to an earthquake), as well as a child burial (GARSTANG - GARSTANG 1948, pp. 60-61, pl. IX) when the dis- tinguished archaeologist of the University of Liverpool for the first time identified a prominent Neolithic stratification underneath almost 5 m of Early Bronze Age layers in his North-East Trench. Garstang reached Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (Sultan Ic of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition periodization), which he labeled “Early Neolithic” and attributed levels XVII-X, and “Late Neolithic”, levels IX-VIII, characterized by the appearance of pottery (SALA 2006, pp. 271-275). 4 One more skull was excavated by the joint Italian-Palestinian Expedition of Sapienza University of Rome and the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities - Dept. of Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (1997-2017). It was found during the fifth seasons at Tell es-Sultan in 2009 (NIGRO 2009, pp. 34-35). 5 KENYON 1981, p. 290, pl. 72 (nowadays in the National Archaeological Museum on the Amman Citadel). 6 BENZ 2010, pp. 249-251. 7 SCHULTING 2015, p. 22; BOCQUENTIN et al. 2016, pp. 39-41. 8 Some of these separated and buried plain skulls were deemed demonstrating the performance of human sacrifices (KENYON 1981, p. 50). 9 One thus would expect that overall synthesis across the ancient Near East reflected such quantitative disparity (CROUCHER 2012, passim). 10 A recent synthesis by Marion Benz (BENZ 2010) has tried to translate Kenyon’s data (and datings) into an up- dated periodization, with however several aporias between stratigraphy and absolute datings. The Italian-Palestinian 23.3, 2017 Tavole a colori 633 Tav. I – Map of Tell es-Sultan with excavated areas and the finding spot of plain skulls, plastered skulls and statues. 4 L. Nigro Sc. Ant. Fig. 1 – Map of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Southern Levant with sites where plain skulls, plastered skulls and plaster statues were found. nia in order to gain some insight into their “use” and possibly ideological meaning (Tav. I). Finally, they are compared with the plaster statues (§ 4.) which from many respect seem the last develop- ments of the custom of modeling with plaster human-like images arisen in Pre-Pottery Neolithic (10,500-6000 BC). Expedition has re-examined the stratigraphy in Squares DI-II, FI, M, EI, EIII and sampled for new radiocarbon datings. This work has confirmed the following stratigraphic re-calibrated periodization/chronology: Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic/ Natufian: 10,500-9000 BC; PPNA: 9000-8000; PPNB: 8000-6000 BC (further subdivisions: Early PPNB 8000-7400 BC; Middle PPNB: 7400-6500 BC; Late PPNB, also called PPNC: 6500-6100 BC); PNA: 6100/5800-5200; PNB: 5200-4800 BC. An occupation hiatus possibly occurred at the end of Pre-Pottery Neolithic (c. 6100-5800 BC), as well as another at the end of Pottery Neolithic (c. 4800-4400 BC). 23.3, 2017 Beheaded Ancestors 5 1 . PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC AT JERICHO, AN EPITOME Pre-Pottery Neolithic Jericho was a strongly innovative community, which introduced agriculture and ani- mal breeding after plants and animals domestication, developed monumen- tal and modular architecture11 (with the invention of the mud-brick and of fine lime plaster), as well as imple- mented pyrotechnology and a distin- guished flint industry12, transforming life-style and environment13, with an amazing growth during more than four millennia (10,500-6000 BC)14. It overcame several crisis, even bringing about occupational hiatuses, demon- strating an essential skill for resilience. Its achievements are epitomized by the Round Tower (Fig. 2) and the at- tached superimposed Town Walls Fig. 2 – The Round Tower of Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (10,500-8000 excavated by Kenyon, as well as by BC) at Tell es-Sultan. many other monuments and finds. Immaterial accomplishments of this community are equally or even more important. The agricul- turalists seem to have inaugurated a social organization based upon a locally-adapted subsistence system integrating cultivation, animal taming and hunting, as well as a set of ideological tools: communitarian rites, differentiated burial customs, and individuals vs. community deals15. Almost a century of archaeology has illustrated the flourishing PPN “town” at wide extent thanks to the work of three successive archaeological expeditions from 1930 to 2017, so that Jeri- cho can be hold as key-site for this period in Southern Levant. 1.1. Jericho and the ideological palimpsest of Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Although the ideological palimpsest of the Near East during the Neolithic has been the field of exercise for many smart minds16, it seems still unveiled, especially as regards the relationships between humans and nature, life and death, i.e. the essence and role of religion17. The peculiari- ties of the archaeological evidence – even though wealthy –, and the multiplication of approaches and models, whether allow to carry ahead the investigation along a multiplicity of research paths, 11 BEN-SHLOMO - GARFINKEL 2009, pp. 191-192, tab. 1. 12 CROWFOOT PAYNE 1983, pp. 639-706. 13 NAVEH 2003; SIMMONS 2007; NIGRO et al. 2011, pp. 577-578; NIGRO 2013, p. 3. 14 Two major occupational hiatuses (or periods with reduced building activities) have been identified at the end of PPNA and of PPNB, while a flourish seems to characterized central PPNA (Stages V-VIII in Trench I), and mature PPNB (Stages XIII-XVII in Trench I, Squares DI-II, FI). 15 KUIJT 2001, p. 86; BENZ 2010, p. 251, pp. 269-270; ROLLEFSON 1983, p. 30; ROLLEFSON 2004. 16 Many skilled scholars have thoroughly analysed the ideological foundations of the Neolithic society, enlighten- ing it with their interpretations focusing on the “agricultural revolution” and its economic, social, and even cognitive implications (CAUVIN 2000; HODDER 2001). 17 e.g. SEALE 1998; CROUCHER 2012. 6 L. Nigro Sc. Ant. result basically in a series of warnings about what we surely cannot state about it18. Moreover, new discoveries, such as Khraysan, Wadi Feinan 16, and Qasr Meshash in Jordan or Göbleki Tepe in Anatolia19, continue to widen the spectrum of ideologically influenced behaviors during PPN. The 45 skulls from PPN Jericho epitomize this situation. Simplistically interpreted as the relics of a somewhat uncontextualized “cult of ancestors” just after their discovery20, they have been pushed back to mere detached skulls at the beginning of the last decade21. What seemed the most relevant questions (to whom did the skulls belong? What was the meaning of modeling and which was the use of plastered skulls?) were thoroughly debated22, and sometimes overcome or subsumed in wider interpretive scenarios23. However, the outcome of such deeper study is a dras- tic increase of uncertainties, which can surely be regarded as a major step up of science, but leaves a bit dissatisfied. I would try to focus again on Jericho, and to put forward a new synthesis – hoping that it also could be of some utility. A renewed and contextual examination of the Jericho skulls, in connection with the often neglected statues may produce some hints at their use and significance24. 1.2. Materials, techniques and shapes: from skulls to statues. Jericho’s skulls are framed within a long-lasting and quite variegated phenomenon, that of skulls separation, manipulation, possible ostentation and re-burying, which is spread all over the Near East towards the end of Epipaleolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic25, and is accompanied by the emergence of plaster statuary in the very last stage of its development in Late PPNB, limitedly to Southern Levant. At Jericho, skulls separation started in PPNA26, when ordinary burials un- der the floors were dug-back to resume skulls or crania (without the mandible) in order to “use” them after manipulation (de-fleshing, smoothing, plastering, painting with collagen or blood), possibly to display or to worship (?), and then rebury them (individually or, more frequently, in groups).